Skip to main content
8:00 am
confidentiality in this payoff they are not supposed to speak about what happened or what that he time at the company or what they know... >> mr. davies... >> mr. davies, the settlement, compromise agreement, somebody resigned, or leaves the business, in circumstances like this, you know, there are some... commercial confidentiality agreements, but nothing that would stop or inhibit the executive from cooperating fully with the investigations or being transparent about any wrongdoing or anything like that, and it is important to note that in these agreements, they are made on the basis of no evidence of impropriety and if evidence of impropriety emerges, or was there prior to that departure you would have a different piece but there is quite a -- that is an important point i think to be clear about. >> my final question is, it
8:01 am
seems to me on the face of it, that the news of the world was sacrificed in order to try and protect rebekah brooks' position at news international
8:02 am
>> i advocated at the time that this was a step we should take. this was a paper and a title that had fundamentally violated
8:03 am
the trust of its readers, and it's something that was a matter of great regret, real gravity, but under the circumstances, and with respect to the bad things that certain of the things that happened at the "american's "nee world" some years ago, it was the right choice for the paper to cease publication. it is important to note and i want to be clear with the committee on this. that the company is doing everything it can to make sure that journalists and staff at the "news of the world" who had nothing to do with any of these issues, who are completely blameless in any of these things, and many are, you know, really have done tremendous work journalistically, that we find reemployment for them anywhere
8:04 am
we k. the company is being as generous as we can under the circumstances. the company is being as thoughtful and compassionate for them and their families to get through this. it is a very regrettable situation, and one that we did not take lightly in any way. >> you have made that clear. i'm going to ask the members, i don't want to cut anybody off, but please we still have some way to go. >> thank you, john. i want to return to how john opened the session, and the evidence that was griffin previously. in connection with mr. davis' questioning, there was one key question you admitted to us. mr. murdoch, james, through the civil actions have you been paying glenn moore claire's legal fees? >> as i said before to mr. davies. >> let's keep it short, it's a
8:05 am
yes or no yes. >> i don't know the current status of those. you asked a question, am i paying all of mr. mulcaire's legal fees. >> have you been playing glenn mulcaire's legal fees during civil actions. >> i don't know the civil actions. i do know certain civil fees were paid for mr. mulcaire by the company and i was as surprised and shocked to learn that as you are. >> can you understand that people might ask why a company might wish to pay the legal fees of a convicted felon who has been involved intimately involved in the destruction of your reputation, to buy the corporation's violence? >> i can't understand that. that's exactly why i asked the question. that's exactly what -- when the allegations came out, i said are we doing this? is this what the company is doing? and on legal advice, you know, and again, i don't want to be legalistic, and i'm not a lawyer, but these are serious
8:06 am
litigations, it's important for all of the evidence from all of the defendants to get to court at the right time. and the strong advice was that from time to time it's important and customary, even, to pay codefendants legal fees and i have to rest on counselor's advice on some of these serious litigation matters. >> is the contribution still contributing to glenn mulcaire's legal fees? >> as i said before earlier i don't know the exact status of that now, but i do know that i asked for those things, for the company to find a way for those things to cease. >> would you let us know? >> i'm happy to follow-up with the committee on the status of those legal fees. >> this is a serious question mr. murdoch senior. is it not time for the organization to say, enough is enough, this man allegedly hacked the phone of the murdered school girl.
8:07 am
is it not time for your objection to stay, do your worst, you behaved disgrace flee, we are not going to pay any more of your costs? >> i would like to do that, i don't know the status of what we're doing or in deed what his contract was and whether it still has any clause. >> if the organization is still paying his fees will you give the instruction now that that should stop? >> provided it's not in breach of the contract, a legal contract, yes. >> i just want to return now to the question of making statements to parliament without being in full possession of the facts. during our 2009 inquiry all the witnesses who came to us testified to being intimately involved in particular a huge troll of emails. it seems over the past few days they've been rather quick to try and distance themselves from
8:08 am
that investigation according to quotes in the newspapers. you stated to us clearly that that troll, that investigation uncovered no new evidence and it's still a lone reporter. james, can you tell us about the file of emails, the so-called internal report that was discovered allegedly as you read through the pages of the sunday times in the newspapers in the offices? can you tell us a little bit more about when that was discovered, when you first came to know about it? what is in it. >> i first came to know about that earlier this year in 2011. >> can you be more precise about the time? you've got a great grasp for knowledge. >> it would have been around -- it would have been around -- in the springtime. i don't remember the exact date when i was told about it. >> before april? >> it would have been april or may. and i can try to find the
8:09 am
meeting schedules and come back, but it was a number of months ago, a few months ago. and i can't speak, i should say, i can speak a little bit to it. but as to the activity that was carried out in 2007, again, i pieced this back together from the past. it was before any of my involvement. the company at the time, i think you're referring to, there was a dismissal, an unfair dismissal case that was brought by mr. goodman, and that was the basis for conducting -- it was right about the time of the convictions, it was all in that period of time. >> that's what we inferred in our report last year but despite the assurances. >> it was right at the time mr. myler had come in, standards had been talked about. this was before all the 2007 business was there, and an
8:10 am
investigation was done, or a fact-finding piece around this. and there was an outside counsel was brought in. it was harbottle & lewis by the company at the time. i think the legal executives, mr. chapman at the time, along with mr. myler who testified to this effect, took reports from them and the opinion was clear that as to their review there was no additional illegality with respect to phone hacking in that file. after their review that was the opinion that was clear. and the company really rested on a number of things from then on. and i certainly know in 2009 when additional allegations came in the summer the company really rested on a handful of things. >> i wanted to move right up to date to what was discovered in the officers. what was discovered?
8:11 am
>> so in 2010, after the civil litigations had put a spotlight, if you will to us, to the company, additional new evidence, new information that hadn't been there before, and the police investigation started off. one of the thins that was went back and looked at, i suppose it was in the spring by senior people at international was that file. it was relooked at, it was opened up and looked at, and it was very rapidly brought to our attention that this was something that would be -- >> when did this happen? when was this looked at? >> again, this was between may -- april, may, june in that period. >> who looked at it first? >> on the side -- people managing the work on behalf of news international from early this year have been led by mr. lewis, that's correct. >> what is in that file?
8:12 am
it's been reported as a collection of 300 emails, a loose leaf binder. what is it? >> as you know, there is an on going criminal investigation and i think it would be wrong of me to talk about specific information or evidence that is subject to and could make problems for the police in doing the important work that they are currently doing. >> i don't think it's going to cause problems with the police if you tell us whether it is emails in a ring binder, loose leaf, what is this -- >> it's paper. i mean i think there are some emails, there are some documents, it's -- >> have you read it all? >> i have not read it all. some emails -- some things in it have been shown to me. >> what was your reaction? was there an expletive that you used when you first read some of these emails? >> i try not to dash ash. >> but when you do, occasionally
8:13 am
when you do. >> my reaction immediately was to agree with the recommendation of the executives involved which is this is something that we should bring to the attention of the police with respect to their ongoing investigations and perhaps new ones. >> when was it given to the police, it's been reported as june the 20th. >> i believe it was in june after we informed the board of the company as well. >> that date is accurate. >> i believe it was june, yes. >> okay. the sunday times, a great newspaper, portrayed, painted a picture on the 10th of july from this file with six gate keepers on the news desk. they've named them. do you recognize that summary from the file that you've had a look at? >> respectfully i would ask you to please understand that
8:14 am
detailed questions about any of the evidence, information that we passed to the police in relation to their ongoing criminal inquires are difficult for me to answer, and i would appreciate it if we could allow the police to undergo the important work that they are undergoing. there is a process that is important. we are cooperating with it, we are providing information on a regular basis. the company is providing information on a regular basis, as needed by the police and i really believe we have to allow the police to conduct their investigation and hold the people who did wrong to account in this area. >> okay. i'll respect that. >> if we comment on anything now it could result in guilty people -- >> i will respect that, clearly the descriptions in the press,
8:15 am
including the sunday times do mention that the emails indicate knowledge of payments to the police, i wouldn't expect you to comment on that. i will just now turn to the letter that is provided -- provided to us by rebekah brooks as evidence during our inquiry that this troll of emails produced nothing more. that letter from lawrence aber mentioned that emails had been reviewed of andy culson, and nothing had come to life from that review that contradicted the loan report, rogue reporter working with glenn mulcaire. knowing what you know now from
8:16 am
the other evidence you've discovered, how do you look back in detail at the basis on which the letter was written, and why they gave such a clean bill of health? >> all i can say is that having directed -- having looked at some of the things in that, and the advice of the senior people inside the company more recently that went and looked at that, it was the view of the company self-evident lee that it was right to bring this to the attention of the police and go forward. and that opinion from the counsel was something that the company, you know, rested on. it was a clear opinion about a review that was done about those records, and in addition in conjunction with the police continuing to say that there was no new evidence and that there was no reason to open a new
8:17 am
investigation, and in conjunction with the pcc saying that they had done their review and done their inquire an inquie was nothing knew there. it was viewed that that was a settled matter. it was only really when new evidenceee merged that those three things began to be undermined. >> could you just provide us with the instructions that were given to lewis, the extent of the information that is given to them out of the totality of information that was available? that sort of detail would help us conclude what really happened. >> if there is additional detail required around legal instructions we will consult and come back to the chairman with a way to satisfy you with the information that you'd like to have. >> clearly, we spotted in our report that this review coincided not so much with the arrival but with the tribunal
8:18 am
actions that glenn mulcaire and others were planning. do you know the reason why it was limited to these six individuals? >> why it was limited to those six individuals i don't know. i wasn't there at the time, and i can't tell you the circumstances, the conversations that people had with harbottle & lewis and the terms of reference of that. it was viewed -- it had been viewed after the fact that that was, you know, had been a thorough look at information, and based on that review that opinion was issued. >> one immediately jumps out. >> in hind sight you can say, we can all say if somebody had looked at this. or somebody had known something that wasn't known yet at the time but i can't comment on why the terms and why the scope was what it was.
8:19 am
>> the proceedings by glenn mulcaire for unfair dismissal notwithstanding the criminal convictions clearly never saw the light of day because they were settled beforehand, therefore we don't know what they were planning to serve on you. do you know what sorts of allegations that they were making? we can only imagine that they were saying that such and such a person -- did you satisfy yourself about the allegations think were making? >> i think many of these individuals you're mentions are currently subject to criminal investigation. some have been arrested recently. these are important matters for the police now, and i do think it's important that i don't stray into or am not led into commenting specifically about individuals or allegations made in the past. >> the question is whether you have satisfied yourself as to what clive goodman and glenn mulcaire were alleging in discussions and negotiations that led up to the settlement, if they brought industrial
8:20 am
tribunals against you. not what they were alleging, but have you satisfied yourself as to what they were alleging. >> as to glenn mulcaire i'm not aware of allegations at the time and other things. and as to goodman, again this was in 2007, before i was there, it's my understanding that that is what harbottle & lewis were help tog do that and that opinion did satisfy the company and the company rested on that opinion for a period of time. >> i take it you'd like to take the opportunity to withdraw this latteletter as an accurate portl of what actually went on at "news of the world." >> it's something that i think it's something that actually, you know, i'm glad you've asked about it actually. it is a key that outside legal advice from senior advice that was provided to the company the company rested on. and i think it goes some distance in explaining, actually why it has taken a longtime for
8:21 am
new information -- actually -- i would he say i think it's important it was one of the bases for which if you will the sort of push back that the company made against new allegations. it was one of the sort of pillars of the environment around the place that led the company to believe this all of these things were a matter of the past and that new allegations would be denied. >> the question was different, mr. murdoch. i asked you whether this letter which is still lying in the record as evidence given to this committee, for whatever reason, would you like to withdraw it? >> i am not aware of the legal technicalities of withdrawing that or submitting it on the record. i think it is a relevant document in trying to understand how news international was thinking at the time. i would say no, but i can come back after taking counsel and seeing if that is a better idea to do it. >> i'll also wind up, given the
8:22 am
time, but i've got a few more questions. as you've described it, the email investigation was carried out by the it department and over seen by the director of legal affairs john chapman and the human resources director daniel cloak, is that your understanding? >> what was the question? >> the investigation itself. you described it, and others described it to us, it was carried out by the it department and over seen by the director of legal affairs, john chapman, and the human resources personnel director daniel cloak h is that an accurate description? >> that is my understanding. >> can you tell us why john chapman has left the organization? >> john chapman and the organization decided it was, you know, in mutual interest to part ways, and i think -- you know, i think one of the pieces here as
8:23 am
well is for the company to move forward, and is for -- and i think this is important, you know, many of the individuals, even if there is no -- if there is no evidence of wrongdoing, or anything like that, and i think that -- you know, and no evidence of impropriety, many individuals have chosen that it's time to part ways. i was not involved with the discussions with mr. chapman, i wasn't in there. >> you have no evidence of any complicity of mr. chapman to cover up the existence of the file that -- >> i do not have that. >> can you tell us the employment statement of daniel cloak. >> he left the company some time ago. i don't know his employment. he is not in the business. he was director of human resources for a number of years, not that many actually, i'm not sure, but left over a year ago, i think, but i can follow-up with you the status. >> okay. i'm just going very quickly to the witnesses who came to us. and, again, in respect to the
8:24 am
file that you discovered this year, regarding les hinton, when did he first become aware of this collection of emails and papers that clearly rendered the advice to him? >> i can't speak to mr. behind ton'mr. hinton'sknowledge. are you referring to 2011 or 2007. >> this document that was left -- >> in 2007. you would -- i can't speak to his knowledge, but i would -- i know that mr. hinton was aware of the work that had been carried out, and i think he's testified to this committee to that effect. >> have you asked him whether -- have you asked les hinton whether he knew about this document mr. murdoch senior?
8:25 am
>> no. >> why not? >> which document are you talking about. >> the document that you discovered in april, may in the offices of harbottle & lewis. >> i don't think it's, you know -- i have not asked him, but i also think, you know, i think he's testified to this. that he as the chief executive of news international would not have been expected necessarily to read x hundreds of thousands of emails there but would rely on the opinion of counsel about what they had done. >> was colin myer -- did he have knowledge. >> i can't speak to other people's knowledge in the past. i can't speak for them. >> security cutner. >> the same goes. i can't speak for them.
8:26 am
>> and rebekah brooks? >> i simply cannot speak for them. i know that mrs. brooks when she was chief executive was one of the people that brought it to my attention as a new thing. >> just to finish off this questioning. i'm just going to wrap-up. we are left now with a situation where you, having looked into this a fair, having cooperated with the police, cannot tell us who lodged the file with harbottle & lewis, who was aware of its contents, and who kept you from being in the full possession of the facts, evidence that its clearly now been submitted to the police but continue tkeubts all the assurances that we were given, not in one but in two committee inquires. that's frankly i would agree is
8:27 am
unsatisfactory. >> i can say that the company at the time engaged an outside law firm to review a number of these emails. they were provided to the law firm ace understand it. as i understand it. based upon the review it was issued to the company -- the law firm and the opinion was clear and the company rested on that. i cannot speak to individuals' knowledge at different times because i simply don't know. what i do know is that the company rested on that, rested on the fact that the police told us that there was no new evidence, no reason for a new investigation and rested on the opinion of the pcc that there was no new information and no reason to carry it further. it wasn't until new evidence emerged from the civil trial, the civil litigations that were going on that we -- the company immediately went to the police, restarted this. and the company has done the right thing in that respect. >> this was evidence that was
8:28 am
lying in your lawyers' possession all the time, it's not simply evidence thatee merged through litigation. >> may i? >> yes. >> it was looked at in conjunction with the new and restarted criminal investigation. these are serious matters, we take them seriously. when we looked at those, when it was looked at, and it was deemed that these things would be of interest to the police, we immediately actually brought in addition counsel, lord mcdonald who i think you mentioned earlier, to help advise the company on what the appropriate way forward, in terms of full transparency and cooperation with police investigations were. and they are very serious matters and the company took them very seriously. >> just two questions. >> very quickly. >> the situation that i just painted where we're now here,
8:29 am
not knowing who in news international was complicit in keeping that file containing how many pieces of paper, we are nowhere near knowing who knew what and when about that file, evidence that clearly contradicts not only statements previously given but evidence as it would appear that led your closest and trusted aid, les hinton to get misleading evidence. do you think that is so. >> no i do not. >> what do you think the company should do as a follow-up to if inquiry? >> well, mr. chapman who is in charge of this has left us. and he had that report for an
8:30 am
amount of time until mr. lewis looked at it carefully, and we immediately said we need legal advice, see if we should go to the police with this. how we should present it, et cetera. >> my understanding is that the file is with the lawyers, with the law firm and there would have been no reason to go and re-look at it. again the opinion of it was very, very clear based on the review that was done, and as soon as it was in the -- in a new criminal investigation it was deemed appropriate to look at, and it was immediately done so. >> my final question mr. murdoch. given the picture that's been painted of individuals in -- on the news desk acting as gate keepers for a private investigator, do you think it's possible at all that editors at your newspaper would not have known about these activities?
8:31 am
do you think it's remotely possible? >> i can't say that because of the police inquires, and coming, i presume, coming judicial proceedings. that's all i can tell you, except it was my understanding -- i better not say it, it was my understanding that mr. myler was appointed by mr. hinton to find out what the hell was going on, and that he commissioned that harbottle & lewis inquiry. now that is my understanding of it. i cannot swear to the accuracy of it. >> thank you. we've been going for two hours.
8:32 am
>> i'll be as brief as i can. what was i to know -- i'm very familiar with the engineering industry, and could you try and paint a picture of a week's operation at "news of the world"? what period were you closely involved controlling "news of the world"? >> my involvement in the business is overseeing the region of european asia, just to be clear in 2008 starting in the middle of september i was chief executive for european asia, our europe television business, u.k. television business, one title which is the "news of the world." i can't say that i was ever intimately involved with the workings of the "news of the world." >> what results would come to you seven days after publication? presumably the sales, the
8:33 am
advertising, the newspaper on the profitability week by week? rupert murdoch is in charge. >> i certainly get that every week. >> these are enterprises. sales and advertising figures, and personnel numbers and all of those things are relevant, managers look at those thins. >> we understand from questions that have been answered already when it comes to legal issues, separate of claimed that that is taken outside from the day-to-day monies of the newspaper. >> each, each, each, each group of companies are entitled to have their own legal executives who will deal with things like liable and other things that will try to check if something doesn't go into the paper that is going to be wrong, et cetera, sometimes it's right, sometimes
8:34 am
it's wrong. it each has its own legal resource, and the managing editor's office is very involved in those things, as well as counsel's office in the newspapers. >> so, the editor -- >> my son's typical week will have been a day in munich, or a day in sky italian. he had a particularly difficult situation with a particular tricky competitor, if i say so, and he had a lot on his plate. >> it became clear from the first couple of questions to you, that you've been kept in the dark quite a bit on some of these. >> nobody kept me in the dark. i may have been lax in not
8:35 am
asking more but it was such a tiny part of our business. >> i understand that. but obviously if it didn't come to this point you won't be here if it wasn't extremely serious. >> it's become extremely serious. >> is it now written rules that certain things have to be reported straight to the very top? is there a law. >> anything that is a crisis comes to me. >> may i just -- may i? i think it's important to know there is a difference between being kept in the dark and a company, a large company the management of which is delegated to managers of different companies within the group and so on and so forth. i think this is that -- that my nats or myself was kept in the dark is a different thing from saying that actually the management of running of this business is often delegated often to the executive of a
8:36 am
different company, or an editor, or managing editor, and decision-making has to be there. there are thresholds of materiality if you will, whereby things have to move upstream, so something has to be brought to the attention. from a financial threshold point of view i think we addressed that earlier with respect to the settlement, out-of-court settlement with mr. taylor. but also from the standpoint of things like alleged criminality, violations of our own code of conduct, things like that, those are things that are the company's internal audit function as well as the audit committee, as well as the senior executives of the committee are expected to be made aware of, as they were in the case of criminal prosecutions in 2007. >> you know, whatever efforts were made, whatever rulings there were, we reached -- news
8:37 am
international reached a crisis otherwise you won't be here today and "news of the world" wouldn't have been closed. who do you hold responsible for that failure? you're saying that people should have told you, but you didn't know. you really said just now, not that they should have told you, but you let them get on and manage it but they should have told you, shouldn't they? what went wrong. >> that's a good question. it's not to say that we're saying and i'm not saying that somebody should have told me. to my knowledge certain things were not known, and when new information came to light with respect to my knowledge of these events, and to the understanding when new information came to light the company acted on it. and the company acted on it in a right and proper way as best the company could. but it's difficult to say that the company should have been told something, if it's not known that a thing was a known fact to be told. now, i've been asked today that, you know, about what other
8:38 am
people knew when and i can only rest on what they have told me, or what they have told you in previous hearings, and i know -- i understand completely your frustration about this. you can imagine my own frustration in 2010 when the civil litigation came to a point where these things were -- came out, and i suddenly realized that actually the push back, or the denial of the veracity of allegations that had been made earlier, particularly in 2009 had been too strong. and that is a matter of real regret, because all the facts were not known when that was done, and that is a matter of deep regret, and it is why we are here today with you trying to be as transparent as we possibly can. >> i suppose this is really a rhetorical question, i'm sure your answer will be what i expect. it's admirable from the fact
8:39 am
that you've had such long-term employees who have become very close friends, i'm sure over the years, and mr. rupert explained that with his determination to look after rebekah brooks, so it's admirable. but there was a lot of criticism at the time, this isn't a criticism against your ability, but there was criticism i that there was nepotism. i'm sure i know the answer, but do you regret, do you regret mr. rupert that it has become really a family organization? >> when the job become available
8:40 am
everybody, including my son had to pass through committees and outside experts who made the conclusion that he was the right person. the press had a field day. when he left to go to what i promoted him to take charge of much wider possibilities, we had calls from all the big shareholders, i say all, many big shareholders, saying it was a terrible thing to take him away because he had done such a great job. >> that's it. the fact that you have been -- you didn't know about so many of these criminal activities that went on, do you not think that was made more likely because of this sort of family history?
8:41 am
i don't just mean him, i'm talking about people who weren't direct members of your family, but became friends. >> no. >> you don't think that factored in. >> i don't think -- i don't think mr. hinton misled me for a minute, but you must find out for yourself and make your own conclusions. he certainly did not know of anything. >> i've got two more members. >> thank you. >> before i address my questions to the hearing i'd like to make a short declaration of my own which is something i previously declared to the committee which is that my wife is an employee of the company calledded h edlen which is engaged by news corporation. she has no access to the information. i want to share that to you before asking any questions. mr. rupert murdoch you said we live in a transparent society. do you think it's right for people in public life that
8:42 am
people can expect total privacy. >> nope. >> in the watergate, for example, personal banking and phone records were used, belonged to one of the witnesses, they were relevant to that investigation. and to what extent do you think the use of confidential, private information, even phone records, even phone hacking is permissible in the course of a news story. >> i think phone hacking is something quite different. i do believe that investigative journalism, particularly competitive does lead to a more transparent and open society. i think we are a better society because of it, and i think -- um, we are probably more of a better society than the united states. >> where do you draw the line
8:43 am
with that, may i ask? where are the boundaries in the investigation. what is out of bounds? >> i'm sorry to say this. and i know -- when the daily telegraph got bought a series of stolen documents of all the expenses caused a huge outcry. one i feel has not been properly addressed. i think there is an answer to it, and we ought to look at the most open and clear society in the world which is singapore, where every president gets a million dollars a year and so does the prime minister and it is the cleanest society you can imagine.
8:44 am
>> thank you for saying that. i mean that seriously. >> it is ridiculous. >> may i help, which is -- it's a very good question and i think it's a very important question and i understand it will be one of the subjects of the judicial inquiry which the prime minister announced last week which as a company we immediately welcomed and we look forward to. this question of public interest, the question of what is acceptable and what isn't, in terms of investigative techniques is an important one. let me be very clear, the codes of conduct of news corporation globally for our employees, journalists or otherwise are very clear, that breaking the law is a very, very serious matter. it should be -- people who are law breakers should be held to account, and in the matter of something like phone hacking, or payments to police and things like that, we just don't think they should have any place in our business. >> you would be very clear that
8:45 am
within your company, within your organization senior people should have been aware that certain things were totally illegal and unacceptable? >> i think after the -- particularly in light of the successful prosecutions and convictions of the individuals involved in 2007, you know, it could not be taken more seriously. and if new evidence emerges, as it has in cases, you know, the company acts on it very, very quickly. >> to what extent do you think you have a cultural problem. rupert murdoch do you think have you a cultural problem within your organization, people tell you what they think you want to hear, even people who have been your trusted advisers for years withhold information because they want to curry favor. >> no, not my best advisers, certainly. you should hear the conversations in my office coming in over time. >> forgive me, is your trusted advisers -- >> a lot of people say i have
8:46 am
crazy ideas. >> a lot of your trusted advisers have left your company. >> we are a very, very big company. i'm sure there may be people who try to please me. that could be human nature, and it's up to me to see through that. >> may i ask, to what extent do you think there is pressure on the senior managers to win favor within the organization that leads them to take risks and clearly in the case of "news of the world" push boundaries beyond the law. >> ask that again i'm sorry. >> why do you think -- do you think there is a pressure on editors for your newspapers where they take risks and break boundaries where the "news of the world" there was illegal action, people broke the law in order to get scoops. >> i think it's terribly wrong. there was no excuse for breaking the law at any time.
8:47 am
there are excuses, rightful and i mean all newspapers to campaign for change in the law, but never to break it. >> two further questions. >> i'd just say i -- i just wanted to say that i was brought up by a father who was not rich but was a great journalist, and he, just before he died, bought a little small paper, specifically in his will saying he's giving me a chance to do good. i remember what he did and what he was most proud of and for which he was hate ned this country by many people for many, many years which was expose the scandal, which i remain very, very proud of.
8:48 am
i would love to see my sons and daughters follow everything, if they are interested. >> rupert murdoch you said that you have had meet insurance with prime ministers during your career. in the period after the arrest -- >> i would say leave me alone. >> of clive goodman, you said earlier one that you were aware of the situation when clive goodman was sent to prison. and you were there at that stage. in the years after that when there were numerous reports, investigations, hears from this committee, we've heard a lot about them today, can any senior politicians that you were in contact with during that period of time raise this as an issue with you, raise concerns about phone hacking. >> absolutely never. the people i met most in those days was mr. brown when he was chancellor, his wife, we struck
8:49 am
up a friendship and our children played together on many occasions. and i'm very sorry that i'm no longer -- i thought he had great values, which i shared with him, and i'm sorry that they've come apart and i hope one day we'll be able to mutt it together putr again. >> you said in your statement to the "wall street journal" that you thought your fellow executives at the "news of the world" had handled the crisis very well with a few minor mistakes. do you stand by the statement or do you believe that the level of mistakes were far greater than that. >> they seem a lot bigger now. what we did was terrible when you talk about handling the process. sorry. they are telling me not to jess
8:50 am
jesticulate. i don't believe that he or mr. hinton made any great mistakes, but, ther were mistaks made within the organization? absolutely. were people i trusted, or they trusted badly betrayed, yes. >> finally to james murdoch. it was reported that when rebekah brooks heard "news of the world" was made she said in a year everyone may understand why it had to close. 0 do you think what the significance of that period of time of a year, are you thinking there may be more revelations to come out that made the closure of "news of the world" acceptable. >> i can't speak to what she was specifically referring to. she made those comments herself, and as a -- when she was saying
8:51 am
goodbye sadly to the staff. i can say, you know, that what happened at the "news of the world" in the events leading up to the 2007 affairs, and prosecutions and what we know about those things now, were bad, and they were things that should not have any place in our organization, and they are things that we unreservedly and really sincerely are sorry for. we haven't seen the end of this. in terms of the ongoing police investigations that are there. as you know, mr. collins, there are a number of people who have been arrested. we don't know what is going to happen in the future around those things. but given the breach of trust, given the allegations that were emerging, at a rapid pace, you know, it was clear to me, any way, and i think that the future
8:52 am
will bear this out, without any specific knowledge of the future, obviously, that, you know, it was the right thing for the paper to cease publication. >> your father said that you, james acted as fast as he could. does that suggest that you were held back at any point or constrained in this process in the last few weeks. >> as i said to the committee earlier, i can't remember, my apologies, mr. collins this has been a frustrating process, actually my frustration i think and my real anger to learn that, you know, there was new evidence emerging as late as the end of 2010, was real, and is real. and, you know, what i've done and what the company has tried to do is take new information, adjust our course, behave with propriety, behave quickly, behave in a humble way with respect to what's happened and
8:53 am
with respect to trying to really put it right. and that's what we are trying to do. it's enormously frustrating. it does not mean i have any knowledge of anyone intentionally misleading me in the company, i don't. which makes it doubly frustrating, but it is -- we are where we are. new informationee merged through the legit nat process of a civil trial. the company acted on it as fast as possibly could be expected. and still new information, or allegations are emerging that, you know, the company and we are trying to deal with in as right a way as we can and the best way possible. >> thank you. finally. >> i am the last questioner i have a few very specific questions that i'd like to ask you. starting with you mr. james murdoch, i know we've been over at length the differences in the
8:54 am
size of settlements, the paid settlements. can you tell me whether or not the taylor settlements included a confidentiality clause and maybe the other settlements did not? [violence breaking out ] >> a dramatic end to some highly anticipated testimony. it's not clear exactly what happened. right before they took a ten-minute break there, but clearly some security violation inside of that room, okay, after some highly anticipated testimony. we've been watching and listening as raoup perfect murdocrupert murdochbegan this g this is the most humble day of
8:55 am
my life. you have sky news up. you have the image inside the room but the camera has been taken off and mr. murdoch and his son james, better they with describe what is happening. >> we see up to the event, they cut away. we do have the pictures again. let's have a quick look. >> oh, oh. >> we also saw pictures of when. >> rupert murdoch's wife in the pink trying to protect her husband. they break away to the cloth, there are the abstract paintings. >> let's take a listen. no, i think they have silenced
8:56 am
that as well at least for now. apparently, i'm just looking at tweets as we are speaking, apparently at least one person has been taken out of the room in handcuffs. one wonders how they got in there in the first place. of course the public is allowed into the meeting. >> that is exactly the point that, you know, the whole part of parliament and parliamentary hearings, just as we can watch them on television, you can get in through the gallery. it does look as if the hearing has been suspended. rupert murdoch we can see sitting there, still holding his glasses. didn't look as if he was particularly hurt. >> this is outside. we did see several -- at least a couple of police officers there in that committee room. we are being told that one
8:57 am
person has been handcuffed and removed from that committee room, at least from these pictures you just saw, a car being reversed into the building there, and -- >> looks like murdoch's car there. we should remind now that this session started just after 2:30, so we are coming up to two and a half hours of evidence being given, you know, and it was only scheduled for an hour. >> an hour. we've got some of what happened. let's speak to jerry jones our deputy political editor. jerry shows us what you've got. >> yes, obviously we'll have a look at the picture. we've circled. you can see the man he's in a sort of checked shirt here. this is rupert murdoch's wife obviously hits him on the head there. you can see he has some sort of plate in his left hand. >> i'm going to interrupt you
8:58 am
for a second if i may. we are looking at a man with white paint perhaps on his face, some sort of white splattering on his face. four police officers at least surrounding him there, and it looks as though he is being spoken to by the police. can't see his hands, but perhaps he has been handcuffed. suggesting that he was certainly handcuffed, but he is certainly being spoken to by the police, a white substance on his checked shirt and also on his face. it looked as though this committee was just about to wrap-up. it was the final mp to ask questions and then this happened. >> i think it probably would have gone on for another ten minutes. as you know, kay, we've seen a number of disruptions in parliamentary proceedings in recent years in the common chambers itself. we had that antihunting protest by young mr. ferry. we had the followers for justice throwing powder into the chamber. that's why they built up glass
8:59 am
around the chamber now. but obviously in these committee rooms it is exactly what you see, the mp's sit around a table at normally a horseshoe, the witness faces them and behind them there are rows of chairs for people to sit on. >> how do people manage to get in? do you cue up? >> you cue up. obviously when you cue up these days you have to go through airport security. you can't take through weapons or anything. and everybody is actually given a photo pass. i should say that obviously we are trying to bring you as much information as possible. but the use of cameras in common's precinct outside of set proceedings is quite limited. >> okay. and i'm not sure if jerry is still with us. we are looking at these pictures. we can see -- i think a police officer also covered in the white substance there as well,
9:00 am
another police officer. they are taking the opportunity to wife the white substance away from the protesters face. they have photographed him already. it looked as if it was on some sort of camera phone that they were taking his photograph, presumably for some sort of recorded evidence before clearing his face. repbwendy was sitting behind her husband during the proceedings. we played an intra cal part in what happened once the demonstrator moved in. >> yes. if you start it there you can see it is the same man. there is rupert murdoch's wife who launches herself at him and slaps him on the top of the head. we obviously see that. you can see he has a plate in his left hand. that's obviously what the maintenance was in, some sort of plastic plate there. i don't know whether that is how he managed to get the stuff in, them thinking it was food or
9:01 am
something like that. now the police officer comes across. obviously a few seconds, rather a few seconds too late. you can see it is the same man there as you had in that live shot with the paint all over him. he's got that same checked shirt. plainly that is individual that we're talking about. >> maybe it was some sort of foam pie. >> there are these people, there have been a number of occasions of this. it's almost a club where they try to shove custard pies in the face of prominent figures, almost as a prank. that may well have been what was going on. i'm just trying to think of some of the individuals. i know we've shown the footage quite often on sky news where the pie people get through. i think they've done people like paul mccartney in the past, and obviously knowing that millions and millions of people were watching this. this would be a target. of course it has the affect of interrupting something that a
9:02 am
lot of people want to hear. >> what's happening with the committee meeting at the moment? so our viewers know exactly what happened. we understand the committee has taken a short break, and they are likely to reconvene in about ten minutes. we still have one other committee member, louise mint she has questions to ask rupert and james murdoch. and then there will be another small break, and rebekah brooks will also be giving evidence, until last week the chief executive of "news of the world." she readily accepted to attend. initially james and rupert murdoch had said they wouldn't attend for varying reasons. they subsequently changed that view, and we could see this man has been detained by the police, there is white gnome on his face, white gnome on his checked shirt as well. adam, up until this incident how
9:03 am
do you think it was going? >> well, it was obviously a very long session. rupert murdoch conceded that whatever people may think of him as the great puppet master, that really there was quite a lot in the business that he was across, that things were going on without him knowing. he made the point that the "news of the world" was 1% of his business. he stood very strongly behind les hinton, who resigned on friday, and behind rebekah brooks, saying he didn't believe that they would lie, he trusted them, he trusted les hinton with his life. and, again, the message from james murdoch was as soon as they became aware of the extent of the hacking, which he said came about as a result of the settlement, or the attempt to
9:04 am
settle civil suits, they have taken the appropriate actions. so they are saying, yes, we were in charge, yes ultimately we've got to take responsibility, but they are saying, no we didn't know, we weren't behind this. rupert saying, newspapers should campaign but never break the law, and a number of, you know, the court of things that we heard that he said to the dowler family, where he skid this was the most humble day of his life, and how he talked about his father, and his father trying to leave him a small newspaper so he could do good. so, i mean i don't think there was any doubt that he was communicating that he realizes that something has gone very badly wrong, and he's responsible for that. of course that won't satisfy all his critics by any means. >> apparently the committee meeting when it does reconvene, there will be no press no public and it's not yet it will be
9:05 am
confirmed whether or not television cameras will be able to monitor what is happening within the wilson room. this is why, just a few moments ago, joey take us through what happened. >> well, it was -- louise mint was beginning her questioning. she was the last individual to be giving questions. are we able to play it again? you can see we've zoomed it right in now. there is wendy getting stuck into the man who aimed a custard pie, apparently, a foam pie at her husband. reading through some of the tweets from people who were in there. paul says that wendy laughed as she relished getting her retaliation in. but he says and he was in the room, that rupert murdoch looks very, very unhappy and the news international lawyers were complaining to the police in the room. i guess that is not entirely surprising, given what had happened there, and, yes,
9:06 am
apparently, i mean you can see she got stuck straight in and she was a lot quicker than either the security who was with rupert and james murdoch or the police who just moved into the shot right now. >> how does security work in these circumstances stphes. >> i mean thecircumstances? >> they are there in the room. they are not too far away. they don't want to be seen absolutely crowding witnesses who are giving key evidence, so it is a bit of a compromise. there is a question to be asked about whether they should have been perhaps near members of the public to respond more quickly. it obviously was rupert murdoch's wife who intervened first of all. >> sitting next to rupert's wife companion managed to get the book in place to protect his face. >> ironically this is an issue for the metropolitan police and something that the metropolitan police commissioner will be speaking on. he's still in place and in place
9:07 am
for a little while yet until they make arrangements as to who will replace him either on a temporary basis until they get the permanent commissioner. >> this chap is apparently being named as johnny marbles who is a comedian. i shouldn't imagine he's laughing too much just at the moment as he's led off by officers of the law. >> hilarious. >> indeed it does raise the comic aspect despite from his point of view, aside from the comic point of view it does raise again serious questions about the security within all of these areas within the houses of parliament and the other common areas, because at the end of the day what you don't want to do is close down democracy, you don't want to close members of the public off from key events like this. you want to let them in. and as adam was saying before there are some fairly stringent security checks in terms of going through metal detectors, et cetera, to make sure you
9:08 am
don't have the kind of weapons that could do serious harm. as we've seen before these don't take into account the fact that people can smuggle paint down their trousers or foam or whatever else, they don't set off metal detectors. some people might argue they are not lethal weapons, paint isn't. but you never know there are lots of other kinds of noxious substances that can be taken in. this will be reviewed. we've had numerous of these reviews after previous breaches within the houses of parliament and associated areas, and i'm sure it will be something that they will be looking at very closely now. >> jerry. >> they are back. >> yes. >> i'd like to apologize on behalf of the committee and parliament for the way you have been treated. and i will make a report to the speaker, i assure you we will take action to try to find out how that happened and how it was able to occur. this is extremely good of you to agree to continue the session
9:09 am
and to allow my colleague louise to finish her questions. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. >> when discussing your initial appearance, i must say i think it she's men's guts on behalf of you to continuancing questions under the circumstances, in such a lengthy session, and i thank you for it. >> thank you. >> my questions will be just as tough as they would have been had that inch fortunate incident not have occurred. mr. james murdoch if i could take you back briefly before we were rudely interrupted. could you please tell me whether or not the taylor settlement involved a confidentiality clause that was not present for the other amounts of money. >> i can tell you the taylor settlement was a confidential
9:10 am
settlement. as to other settlements, more recent, i believe some are confidential, some are not. i don't believe any have been confidential settlements. i can follow-up as to whether think have been. it's customary for both parties to agree. there is nothing unusual about an ou out-of-court settlement bg made confidential and being agreed to being confidential. but it was. and with respect to -- i think the base of the question is the disparity in the amount of money involved? there was nothing in the taylor settlement with respect to confidentiality that spoke to the amount of money. the amount of money was derived, as i testified earlier, from a judgment made about what the likely damages would be, and what the likely expenses and litigations costs would have been had the company taken the litigation to its end and lost. >> you've been great sure, that
9:11 am
is your explanation, i put it to you an inference could be drawn if the larger settlements contained confidentiality and the smaller did not, despite what you say it being a pragmatic condition based on the cost of the company an inference could be bought that silence was being bought by the confidentiality clause in the larger settlements. >> that inference would be false. >> a lot of people find it quite hard to believe that two executives who nobody would regard as passive had such little knowledge of widespread illegality at one of your flagship papers. can i ask you very specifically, mr. james murdoch first, when did you become aware that the victims of crime had been hacked, when did you become aware that the phone of the murder victim dowler had been
9:12 am
hacked? >> the terrible, the terrible instance of deception around the lilly dowler case only came to my attention when it was reported in the press a few weeks ago. i can tell you it was a total shock, that was the first that i heard of it and became aware of it. >> is that the same of hacking of other victims of crime? in other words, have you been made aware prior to the million lee dowler reporting that your reporters hacked into the phones of any other crime victims. >> no i had not been made aware of that. >> just for the record, so your answer to my colleague earlier, you'll be aware it's of very lively interest. apparently a known was hacked on u.s. soil. given that allegation are you absolutely confident that no
9:13 am
employee or contractor of news corp. or any of its property hacked the phones of 9/11 victims or their families? >> we have no evidence of that at all. >> have any credible allegations? do you have a statement mr. james murdoch. >> i was just going to say that those are incredibly serious allegations, and they've come to light very recently. we do not know the veracity of those allegations and are trying to understand precisely what they are, and any investigations. i remember well, as all of us do the september 11th attacks and i was in the far east, living there at the time, and it is just appalling to think that anyone associated with one of our papers would have done something like that. i am aware of no evidence about that. i'm well aware of the allegations, and will eagerly
9:14 am
cooperate with any investigation or try to find out what went on at that time. this is a very, very new allegation, just a few days old, i think, but they are very serious allegations, and that sort of activity would have absolutely, you know, no place, it would be appalling. >> from the information provided to you so far i notice mr. rupert murdoch, have you received any information that gives you cause for concern that employees of news corp. or contracted with muse corp. may have indulged in that kind of hacking? >> no, we've only seen the allegations that have been made in the press i think it was in the mirror or something like that, and we are -- and we are actively trying -- we'd like to know exactly what the allegations are and try to understand, you know, anything about them. >> you don't have documents, memos or received any any verbal reports that any employee of
9:15 am
news corp. hacked into those lines. >> no. >> have you as a result of a wider review, have you heard from any of your employees from papers in other countries that phone hacking, or illegal practices may have been happening in those properties, in your australian properties, any property indeed where news corp. owns media properties? are you doing a global review and have you heard of any allegations of phone hacking in any of your other territories. >> i'm not aware of any allegations in any other territories. i haven't heard of those allegations. i would go become to the code of ethics and conduct that all of our colleagues at news corporation globally weather journalists or management are required to have when they join the company and are briefed on those things. it is a matter of real seriousness. the journalistic ethics of any of the newspapers or television channels within the group, and
9:16 am
certainly it's something that on a global basis, you know, we want to be consistent. we want to be doing the right thing, and when i say that illegal behavior has no place in this company that goes for the whole company. >> mr. rupert murdoch you are the chairman and chief executive of news corp. you are the head of the global company the buck stops with you. given these allegations that you have said indeed when you opened the session you said this was the most humiliating day of your life -- >> humble. >> i'm sorry, humble, i beg your pardon. that is a misstatement. the most humble day of your life, you feel humbled by these events. you are ultimately in charge of the company. given your shock at these things being laid out before you and the fact that you didn't know anything about them, have you instructed your editors around the world to engage in a broad review of their own newsroom to make sure this isn't being replicate ned other news corp. papers around the plain, and if
9:17 am
so will you do so. >> no, but i'm more than prepared to do so. >> thank you. one final question, or two final questions. the first is you touched earlier, this is for james murdoch, very briefly you touched on the general culture of phone hacking, illegal practices that have in the past happened in this country. if i could put a couple of things to you. to you. piers morgan, who is a celebrity at cnn, you haven't asked him any questions about phone hacking, he said recently and i quote that that little trick of entering a standard four digit code allowed anyone to call a number and hear all your messages, in that book he boasted that you think that trick had him win journalist of the year. thinks about his personal use of phone hacking.
9:18 am
yesterday in parliament paul -- sorry? he's a former news of the world executive. he was boasting about a story that happened when he was editor of the daily mirror. paul decker said to a committee of parliament, in my view, that the daily mail has never in its history run a story based on phone hacking or blogging in any way yet operation motor man which stands for you mr. james murdoch made you aware they had 50 journalists paint 902 pieces of information obtained by the private investigator steve whitmore who had been found to have used some unorthodox methods, you told me earlier mr. murdoch that people prepping you to come before this committee told you to simply tell the truth, which i think is excellent advice. is it not the fact, is it not the truth of the matter that journalists at the news of the
9:19 am
world felt entitled to go out there and use blogging, deception and phone hacking because that was part of the general culture of corruption in the british tabloid press, and that they didn't dic kick it upe chain to you because they felt they were entitled to do things that everybody else did. isn't that the fact of the matter? >> i am aware of those reports, the questions around other newspapers and their use of private investigators. but i think really, you know, all i can really speak to in this matter is the behaviors and the culture at the "news of the world" as we understand it, how we are trying to find out what really happened in the period in question, but also i think importantly it's not for me here today to impugn other newspapers, other journalists, other things like that.
9:20 am
>> i'm asking if the "news of the world" felt enured engaging in phone hacking because it was widespread in british tabloid journalism. >> i don't accept that if a journalist on one of our papers, or at a television channel, or, or, or, or, or, or, internet news operation feels that they don't have to hold themselves to a higher standard, um, you know, that -- you know, i think it's important that we don't say, listen, everybody was doing it and that's why people are doing this. at the end of the day we have to have a set of standards that we believe in, we have to have titles and journalists who operate to the highest possible standard. and we have to make sure that when they don't live up to that that they are held to account, and that is really the focus for us. >> mr. rupert murdoch are you
9:21 am
have you considered suing harbottle a*plt lewis. you said thharbottle & lewis. you said you relied on the investigation by the police and the investigation undertaken by your solicit tores, harbottle & lewis under whose care this enormous pile of documents was found. there is an old saying, if you want something done you thud do it yourself. you relied on these three people, all of which were severely lacking. are you considering harbottle & lewis. >> any legal action is a mountains for the future. really today is about how we actually make sure that these things don't happen again, so i won't comment or speculate on any future legal matters. >> a pile of evidence, you were
9:22 am
asked by my colleague if you had read it yourself, and you said no. under the circumstances when you relied on the people and advisers and they severely let your company down, do you not think, mr. murdoch that perhaps you and you mr. rupert murdoch ought to take the time and read through everything in that file personally. >> for clarity, i did say that i did read some of the contents of that. they were shown to me, and what i saw was sufficient to know that it should be -- that the right thing to do was to hand these over to the authorities to help them with their investigation. >> i understand that, but do you not think that under the circumstances, and the enormous reputation tphal damage, i'm sure you'll be the first to admit has been done to news corp., don't you think as senior executive of the company you should take the time to read through the entire file so you are completely comprised of what happened? >> i'm happy to do so. i think i've seen a bit of it. >> okay. my last question is for you mr. rupert murdoch.
9:23 am
you said that your friend of 52 years, i think, les hinton has stepped down and has resigned because he was in charge of the company at the time. in other words, he said he was the captain of the ship and therefore he resigned. is it not the case, sir, though that you in fact are the captain of the ship? you are the chief executive officer of news corp., the global corporation. >> yes. i ran a much bigger ship. >> it is a much bigger ship. you are in charge of it. as you said in earlier questions you do not regard yourself as a hands-off chief executive. you work ten to 12 hours a day. this terrible thing happened on your watch. mr. murdoch have you considered resigning? >> no. >> why not? >> because i feel that people i trusted, i'm not saying who, i don't know to what level have let me down, and i think they behaved disgrace flee and betrayed the company and me, and it's for them to pay. i think that frankly i'm the
9:24 am
best person to clean this up. >> thank you mr. murdoch. as i say i do very much appreciate your immense courage in having seen this session through despite the common assault that just happened to you. thank you. >> thank you. >> i will allow very briefly. >> james, if i could call you james. when you signed off the taylor payment did you see, or were you made aware of the four-level email the transcript of the voice message. >> no i was not aware of that at the time. >> why on earth did you pay an astronomical sum and there was no reason to? >> there was -- there was every reason to settle the case given the likelihood of losing the case and given the damages that we had perceived counsel would be levied. >> if taylor and clifford are
9:25 am
prepared to release their obligation to confidentiality, will you release them from their confidentiality clause so that we can get to the full facts as to those cases? >> i cannot comment on the cliff tpoefrclifford matter at all. i wasn't involved in that matter. as to the taylor matter it's a confidential agreement. i don't think it's worth exploring hypotheticals. >> the crux of this case it will help us get to the truth. if he removed himself from an obligation, if he allows his papers to be released would you allow yours -- >> a hypothetical scenario, i'm happy to correspond with the chairman about what specifically you would like to know other than -- >> why would you want -- >> other than the detailed testimony i'm giving you today. >> why would you -- do you want to carry on with a few more questions so i can get to the end of this? >> i think we have covered this at some considerable length. >> mr. chairman we haven't,
9:26 am
respectfully. mr. murdoch, your wife has a very good left hook. >> mr. murdoch i know you did ask if you could make a closing statement. the committee would be entirely happy to hear it. >> thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee. i would like to read a short statement now. my son and i came here with great respect for all of you, for parliament and for the people of britain whom you represent. this is the most humble day of my career, and all that has happened i know we needed to be here today. james and i would like to say how sorry we are for what has happened, especially with regard to listening to the voice mail of victims of crime. my company has 52,000 employees, i have led it for 57 years, and
9:27 am
i have made my share of mistakes. i have lived in many countries, employed thousands of honest and hard-working journalists. i own nearly 200 newspapers of very different sizes and followed countless stories about people and families around the world. at no time do i remember being as sickened as when i heard what the dowler family had to endure, which i think was last monday week. nor do i recall being as angry as when i was told that the "news of the world" could have compounded their distress. i want to thank the dowlers for graciously giving me the opportunity to apologize in person. i would like all the victims of phone hacking to know how completely and deeply sorry i am. apologizing cannot take back
9:28 am
what has happened, still, i want them to know the depth of my regret for the horrible invasions into their lives. i fully understand their ire. i understand our responsibility to corporate with today's session as well as with future inquires. we now know that things went badly wrong at the "news of the world." for a newspaper to hold others in account to pay when it came to itself. the behavior that occurred went against everything that i stand for. and my son too. and not only betrayed readers and many thousands of professionals in other divisions
9:29 am
but others around the world. so let me be clear in saying, invading people's privacy by listening to their voice mail is wrong. paying police officers for information is wrong. that his inconsistent with our code of conduct and neither has any place in any part of a company that i run. to say i'm sorry is not enough. things must be put right. no excuses. police whose job it is to see that justice is done. it is our duty not to prejudice the outcome of the legal process. i'm sure the committee will understand this. i wish we had managed to see and fully solve these problems much earlier. when two men were sent to prison in 2007, i thought this matter had been settled.
9:30 am
the police ended their investigations and i was told that "news international" conducted an internal review. i am confident that when james later rejoined news corporation, he thought the case had closed too. these are subjects you will no doubt wish to explore. and have explored today. this country has given me, our companies and our employees many opportunities. i'm greatful for them. i hope our contributions to britain will one day also be recognized. above all, i hope that we will come to understand the wrongs of the past and prevent them from happening again and in the years ahead restore the nation's trust in our company and in all british journalism. i am commit to doing everything in my power to make this happen. thank you. >> thank you.
9:31 am
can i, on behalf of the committee thank you for giving up so much of your time this afternoon to come here and, i would like to apologize again for the totally unacceptable treatment you received from a member of the public. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> all members. >> we will will, the committee will now have a break for five minutes before we move to the next. >> so another pause now for the moment but not after a highly unanticipated moment when a protestor made a move toward rupert murdoch, trying to reach mr. murdoch with paint or shaving cream or something similar. his wife, wendy, you will see in a moment clearly seen slapping and reaching toward that protestor. they cleared the room and mr. murdoch came back as you saw without his suit jacket. and that concludes nearly three hours of testimony, the 38-year-old son james, saying the actions of phone-hacking are regretable and apologized but the toughest questioning appeared to come at the very
9:32 am
beginning of this hearing when mr. murdoch was asked whether or not anyone was lying to him, who else was involved, what was mr. murdoch told by whom and when? now several of those questions mr. murdoch defered to his son james, who by the way is the deputy chief operating officer at news corporation. now in return, the company, james stated, has established a group to cooperate fully with the police and scotland yard. a police agency that is not absent its own issues. the top two police officers in london have since resigned. now we are awaiting rebekah brooks, a long-time executive with news corporation, the parent company of the fox news channel. brooks ran the tabloid "news of the world" when the hacking occurred some six to eight years ago. she has since resigned her position with the company last friday. as we await on ms. brooks, shares of news corporation, rather, are trading on wall street. they're up 5% during the
9:33 am
testimony of the past three hours. our coverage continues from london. and also with happ being now. -- "happening now." our colleagues to follow us. after this commercial break. i'm bill hemmer in new york. diabetes testing? it's all the same. nothing changes. then try this. freestyle lite® blood glucose test strip. sure, but it's not gonna-- [beep] wow. yep, that's the patented freestyle zipwik™ design. did it just-- [both] target the blood? yeah, drew it right in. the test starts fast.
9:34 am
you need just a third the blood of one touch.® that is different. so freestyle lite test strips make testing... easy? easy. great. call or click-- we'll send you strips and a meter, free. free is good. freestyle lite test strips. call or click today.
9:35 am
whose long day starts with arthritis pain... and a choice. take tylenol arthritis and maybe up to s in a day... or choose aleve and two pills for a day free of pain. happy chopping. or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today.
9:36 am
jon: a fox news alert. i'm jon scott along with jenna lee for what is happening now in great britain. a number of our chatters has been asking, what is this?
9:37 am
these are the hearings that have convulsed a nation. we'll take you now to coverage of the hacking scandal. as you can see it is called there on the screen. this from sky news, our sister network in britain. >> immaculate bright pink jacket and prevented a much more serious attack. mps on the committee are saying don't mess with wendy. she apparently was the absolute heroine of the hour according to mps on the committee. they are furious. this is another terrible lapse of house of common security. the mps are pretty furious about it because they fear it has taken away attention from the meat of the evidence given by rupert murdoch and his son. but the way mps inside that committee are describing what happened, they are paying tribute to the bravery and the fast reactions of rupert murdoch's young wife, wendy, who let in and prevented a much more serious attack i'm told. >> john, what kind of
9:38 am
security is there there? >> well inside the committee, i'm speaking to you now from the atrium and there are not many police in here. there is one or two. the committee room, it is on the first floor, the wilson room. and there are police in the corridor. as far as i can see, not. of a police presence inside the room. now this is very different from inside the commons chamber. of at tacks own the commons chamber by fathers for justice and pro-hunt demonstrators, there are many, many, more police inside the commons chamber now. there is a big glass screen in front of the public gallery. select committees whether they invite the public to come on first-come-first-serve basis. anyone can get in. clearly the security checks are not that great. once you're into a select committee like this one, once you're in you could probably do just about anything. you can shout. you can heckle. there was a bit of a heckle right at the beginning of the select committee today.
9:39 am
this incident happened after nearly 2 1/2 hours of long evidence given by murdoch, sr. and junior. 80-year-old mr. murdoch was clearly stunned as his son but it was brave and swift actions of his wife wendy i'm told by mps on the committee, she was superb, they tell me. don't mess with wendy one of the mps on the committee told me. >> john craig, thank you. just to let you know that questions are home affairs committee. they're getting you know way now. they will be questioning the former and current director of public prosecutions. you can watch that on news interactive. that is our sister service. so if you want to watch that session you can do so. in the meantime we're waiting for rebekah brooks to give evidence. here with our editor, adam bolson before rebekah brooks comes in one word about the security breach. a shocking moment this afternoon. >> clearly, rupert is an old man and therefore, any sort
9:40 am
of assault even though it was kind of a comedy assault apparently about this come need wran -- comedian, calls himself johnny marbles is serious matter. there were no weapons there because you have to get searched getting into these rooms even if that was the intent. frankly i didn't think that either of the two murdoches giving evidence seemed particularly shaken by the experience. and, you know, although it is dramatic i suspect it will be will testimony in the long run will be important. one aspect, anna, worth mentioning, you may remember rupert murdoch said i think it was rupert murdoch rather than james, said les hinton, the then boss of "news international" have been tofked along with colin miler, last editor of "the news of the world" to see if there was anymore mess around the hacking and
9:41 am
behavior. colin mile letter contradicting testimony from the murdoches saying he didn't play any role looking into cleanup or investigation. he was simply told by. had r there was no smoking gun. so he is saying i was not responsible. that was a pretty important piece of testimony, because remember there were these e-mails which were sent to a legal firm of harbottle and lewis as far as we can tell contain some pretty damning evidence that were out of the loop for years and effectively accusations that amounted to a cover-up within "news international". rupert murdoch appeared to say, if inanyone was responsible for that cover-up, sending this material out. way it was les hinton and colin meiler. who lost his job as editor, issuing a statement, no i was part not part of that. >> questions will come up with rebekah brooks to give
9:42 am
evidence. there was a short break between the murdoch evidence and rebekah brooks. we'll go live as soon as that gets started. how much new did we learn from this afternoon, three hours. we got three hours of questioning. did any of the key questions get answered in your view? >> there was one important statement from both generations of murdoch which they accept that severe wrongdoing has been done. they did not attempt to defend it in any way. they accepted that, that they were this responsible in as much as it happened on their watch and that they had to try to apologize and make some sort of atonement. that said, rupert murdoch, senior, who at the beginning looked pretty dodery quite frankly although he warmed up as three hours went along. made pretty clear this was 1% of the his business. he wasn't paying close attention to it. >> let's go back to the committee room because rebekah brooks has just
9:43 am
taken her seat. let's listen in. >> we come to the second part of our session. i would like to welcome miss rebekah brooks who recently chief executive officer of "news international". and i would like to thank you for your willingness to come before the committee. we are very much aware there is an ongoing police investigation which could lead to criminal proceedings. we will bear that in mind but we also appreciate your statement when you resigned from the company that you wanted to be a as helpful as possible to -- the way. could i start then. "news international" issued a statement when you were chief executive in july 2009 saying, -- evidence to support allegations that "news of the world" voice mails of many individuals that they are instructed private investigators or other third parties to access voice mails of any
9:44 am
individuals, systemic corporate illegal galty by news inters national. would you accept now that that is not correct? >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i answer that question i would like to add my own personal apology to the apologies james and rupert murdoch made today. clearly what happened at "the news of the world" and certainly when the allegations of voice intercept, voice intercepts, the crime is pretty horrific and abhor haven't. i -- abhorrent. i want to reiterate that. i'm very keen to come here and's questions here today. as you know i was arrested and interviewed by the police a couple of days ago. so i have legal representation here just so i don't impede the criminal proceedings which you would expect but i intend to
9:45 am
answer everything as openly as i can and not to use that, if at all possible. i know you all had a briefing around the same. >> we are grateful for that. so, perhaps i could invite you to comment on whether or not you now accept that the statement is, saying that "news of the world" journalists have not accessed voice mails or indeed instructed investigators to do so is actually untrue? >> well, again, as you have heard, in the last few hours, the fact is that since, since miss sienna miller civil documents came into our possession the end of december, december 2010, that was the first time that we at the senior management of the company at the time had actually seen some documentary evidence. actually relating to a current employee. and i think that we acted
9:46 am
quickly and decisively then when we had that information. as you know, it was our document, our evidence that opened up the police inquiry into 2011, in january. and since then we have admitted liability on the civil cases. -- exactly as many as possible. we appointed sir charles gray so that victims of phone-hacking if they feel they want to come directly to us and don't want to incur expensive legal costs they can come directly to be dealt with very swiftly. as you know the court process is taking its time and those cases aren't going to be heard until i think january 2012 so the compensation scheme is there in order for people to come forward. so i'm of course, mistakes were made in the past but i think and i hope you will agree since we saw the evidence at the end of december we actually and properly and quickly. >> so until you saw the
9:47 am
evidence which was produced in the sienna miller case, you continued to believe that the only person in the news world who had been implicated in phone-hacking was clive goodman? >> i think if you see the sequence of events. in 2009, i think with the first time that all of us and, and i know some members of the committee spent a long time on this story and looking at the whole sequence of events. so i no you know it pretty well. just to reiterate in 2009 when we heard about the gordon taylor story appeared in the guardian i think that's when information unravel haved and but very, very slowly. we had conducted many internal investigations. i know you spent a lot of time talking to james and rupert murdoch about them but, we had been told by
9:48 am
people at "the news of the world" at the time that consistently denied any of these allegations in various internal investigations. and it was only when we saw the sienna miller documentation that we realized that the severity of the situation. just to point out one of the problems of this case has been our lack of visibility and what we received from glen mill care's home. we had zero visibility because of the drip, drip effect we only see it during the civil proper and we act on that accordingly. >> but it is now your view based on that evidence certainly you were lied to by senior employees? >> well i think unfortunately because of the criminal procedure, i'm not sure that it's possible for me to infer guilt until
9:49 am
those criminal procedures have taken place. >> tom wolff. >> there are many questions i want to ask you but i won't be able to do it today because you're facing criminal proceedings so i'm going to be narrow in eye questioning. what did you facts on tom crown. >> what happened on tom crown we made the regretable decision to close "the news of the world" after 168 years, tom crown has predominantly been "the news of the world" legal. he has been our legal manager to cover the situation at "news of the world". predominantly spent most of his time, in fact pretty much 99% of his time on "the news of the world". and the rest of the company and the rest of the titles have we appointed new lawyers and, job for tom crown at "news of the world" so he left. >> still dealing with "the
9:50 am
news of the world" legal case? >> sorry. >> someone is still dealing with the "news of the world" legal cases though? >> yes. the civil cases are being dealt with by like i said first one is the standard management committee that we have set up. and we've seen the announcement gone out recently. i won't go over it. i know james and rupert talked about it. also feri is has been doing civil cases all along. we have test cases coming before the judge on january and there are people dealing with it. tom crown as well was the hands-on legal manager of "the news of the world". obviously when we closed the paper there wasn't a job there. >> i must have have misunderstood what james murdoch said. he implied that it has been a busy day. as journalist and editor of the news of the world how ex-sensitively did you work with -- extensively did you work with private
9:51 am
detectives. >> when i was editor of "the news of the world", as you know i came before this committee, just as i became editor of "the sun" in relation to what privacy and what is managers called. back then we answered extensively questions about the use of private detectives across "fleet street.". a chart was published which i can't remember whether "news of the world" was on it. i think it was, i "the sun" on the table was below take a break magazine. certainly top five the is observer the gaapian, "the news of the world", "the daily mail.". >> chairman, can i just, interrupt there. i used to work at observer but not in 2001. it was not at the top four. >> top six then. >> observer had four instances. >> but it was on the table.
9:52 am
>> just to answer my question, you extense sievely work with private investigators, is that the answer? >> no what i said was the use of private detectives in the late '90s and 2000 was a practice of "fleet street" and after operation privacy, "fleet street" actually reviewed this practice and in the main, the use of private detectives was stopped. don't forget at the time as you are aware it was all about data protection. data protection act or changes to that which were made. and that's why we had the committee and in 2003. >> just for the third time, how extensively did you work with private detectives? >> the news of the world employed private detectives like most newspapers on fleet 6 street. >> you were aware of and approved payments to private detectives. >> i was aware "news of the world" used private detectives under my editorship of the "news of the world" yes. >> so you would have approved payments to them? >> no is not how it works.
9:53 am
i was aware we used them. >> who approved the payments? >> the payment system in a newspaper which has been discussed at length and is very simply the editors job is to require the overall budget for the paper from the senior management. once that budget is acquired, it is given to the managing editor to allocate to different departments. each person in that department has a different level of authorization. but the final payments are authorized by the managing editor. unless, there is a particularly big item. a set of photographs or something that is, needs to be discussed on a wider level. then the editor will be brought in. >> so stuart would have discussed payments to private detectives with you? >> not necessarily, no. we're talking 11 years ago. he may have discussed payments to me but i don't particularly remember any incidents. >> you don't remember
9:54 am
whether you would have discussed any payments at all? >> no, i didn't say that. i said in relation to private detectives. >> yes. >> i was aware "the news of the world" used private detectives as every paper on fleet streit did. >> you don't required whether you authorized payments or -- >> the payments of those private detectives would have gone through the managing editor's office. >> you can't remember when he discussed it with you. >> sorry. >> you can't remember whether stuart cutler discussed it with you. >> i can't remember discussing individual payments. >> in your letter in 2009 you said you did not recall meeting glenn mulcaire. you appreciate this is inadequate answer under the circumstance. we require a specific response to our questions. did you ever have any contact with, directly or through others with glenn mulcaire? >> none whatsoever. >> would your former diary secretary michelle be able to confirm that? >> michelle. >> you have a diary secretary?
9:55 am
>> i have had a pa since 19 years called cheryl. >> would your pa be able to confirm. >> absolutely. >> does she hold your diary for the last 19 years. >> no, she probably doesn't. we don't keep back 19 years. she may have back from then. i don't know. >> would it be in paper format or electronic format? >> i did not meet mr. mulcaire. >> talking about your diary, electronic format or paper format? >> would have been on paper format until very recently. >> do you think glenn mulcaire would deny he ever met you? >> i'm sure he would. although, i mean, yes. the truth. >> were you aware of the arrangement news group newspapers had with mulcaire while you were editor of "news of the world" and "the sun"? >> no. >> so you didn't know what he did? >> i didn't know particularly. glenn mulcaire was one of the detectives used by "the news of the world". >> didn't know he was on the payroll? >> in fact i first heard glenn mulcaire's name in
9:56 am
2006. >> did you receive any information that originated from glenn mulcaire or his methods? >> what, to me? to me personally? >> you as editor, did anyone bring you information as a result of glenn mulcaire's methods? >> i mean, i know it is entirely appropriate question but i can only keep saying the same answer. i didn't know glenn mulcaire. i never heard the name until 2006. there were other private investigators that i did know about and have heard about but he wasn't one of them. >> we'll come onto that. now that you know what you know, do you suspect that you might have received information on the basis of gathered by glenn mulcaire? >> now that i know, this is it one of the difficulties. obviously i know quite an extense sieve amount now particularly the last six months of investigating this story. and glenn mulcaire i'm aware
9:57 am
worked on and off for "the news of the world" i think in the late '90s. and, and, continued through until 2006 when he was arrested. so obviously if he worked for "the news of the world" for that time he was, he was involved. and i think, i think the judge said in 2007, which again, we may disagree with that now but the judge said in 2007 when glenn mulcaire was convicted that he had a perfectly legitimate contract with "the news of the world" for, for, research and investigative work and the judge said that i think quite repeatedly throughout the trial. so that's what i can tell you. >> did you ever have any contact directly or through others with jonathan rees? >> no. >> do you know about jonathan rees? >> again, i had a lot recently about jonathan rees. i watched the panama ram ma program. as we all did.
9:58 am
and, he wasn't, he wait a minute a name familiar with me. i'm told that he rejoined the news of the word in 2005, 2006, and, he worked for "the news of the world" and many other newspapers in the late 1990s. that is my information. >> do you find it peculiar having serve ad sentence for a serious criminal offense he was then rehired by the paper? >> it does seem extraordinary. >> do you know who hired him? >> no i don't. >> do you know who designed his contract? >> no i'm sorry. >> did you conduct a investigation for six months did you find out that? >> the investigation we've been conducting six months is particularly around the introduction of voice mails as you know. we are, the management and standards committee of "news international" are going to look at jonathan rees and we already do have some information but, as to the
9:59 am
conclusions of that investigation, i do not know. >> what information do you have? >> we have information that, as i said, that jonathan rees worked for -- many newspapers on "fleet street" in the late '90s and was rehired by "the news of the world" sometime in 2005. >> do you know what he was doing at that time? >> in? >> 2005-6. >> i don't, i'm sorry, no. >> did you not ask? >> well i was editor of "the sun" at the time. i didn't know they hired him. i only found out recently. >> as executive the company didn't you know what he did 2005-67 considering you have a hacking skanled dal around you. >> absolutely. i have the information that panama ram ma had that jonathan rees worked as private investigator. in panorama investigation he was conducting many illegal investigations. also owe worked for panorama. he worked for many newspapers presumably before

tv
Happening Now
FOX News July 19, 2011 8:00am-10:00am PDT

News/Business. Jon Scott, Jenna Lee. Breaking news reports. New.

Network FOX News
Duration 02:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Port 50003
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec mp2
Pixel width 720
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color
disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 7/19/2011
Views
142